Ukip answers questions about its science policy

Prominent figures in UK science, including
Brian Cox,
Simon Singh and
David Nutt, asked the main political parties 10 challenging questions about their science policies. These are the answers in full from
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, the climate change spokesperson for Ukip (UK Independence Party)

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Ukip: 'All funding connected with "global warming" research will cease until a Royal Commission has heard the evidence on both sides of the case.' Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian

Do you plan to maintain Britain's science budget below the European average?

"European averages" are not a sound basis for public investment decision-making. To restore a fair balance in science funding, all funding connected with "global warming" research will cease until a Royal Commission has heard the evidence on both sides of the case, with all the rigour of a court of law, and has substantively reported. In the meantime, the large sums now squandered on addressing anthropogenic "global warming" will be redeployed partly to increase funding for science in general, which has suffered at the hands of rapacious climate extremists, and partly to diminish the dangerously unsustainable national debt.

Alternative medicine

If the balance of evidence suggests that a treatment does not perform any better than placebo, should it be supported by the NHS?

"The balance of evidence" is not a sound basis for scientific decision-making. The correct approach is to conduct randomised, double-blind clinical trials of the "alternative" medication against a placebo, in accordance with a protocol agreed between the promoters of the "alternative" medication and the relevant Royal College.

No "alternative" medication that fails to outperform a mere placebo to a sufficient statistical confidence interval should be made available within the NHS.

Once an "alternative" medication has been demonstrated to be sufficiently efficacious in comparison to a placebo, it should be made available on the NHS provided that it either achieves the same result for less cost than existing "conventional" treatments or achieves a better result for the same cost.

Simon Singh: Libel

What will your party do to reduce the chilling effect of our libel laws on science? Currently there is no statutory public interest defence, so scientists risk running the gauntlet of London's High Court if they publish material they believe to be in the public interest, but that a major corporation or litigious charlatan believes to be libellous.

There is no need to change the libel laws. Truth is an absolute defence against a claim for libel. If a scientist accuses someone of being a charlatan and cannot prove that his victim is a charlatan, he should be bound by just the same libel law as anyone else.

Later amended by Ukip press office to:

Truth must be an absolute defence against a claim for libel. If a scientist accuses someone of being a charlatan and cannot prove that his victim is a charlatan, he should be bound by just the same libel law as anyone else. However, libel law is due for some reform as the costs of defending a case have become prohibitive and the jurisdiction stretch has become invidious.

Climate change/Energy

Should nuclear power be part of our country's strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How soon can we bring new plants online?

Ukip's climate and energy policy is as follows:

Ukip would appoint a Royal Commission on "global warming" science and economics, under a High Court judge, with advocates on either side of the case, to examine and cross-examine the science and economics of "global warming" with all the evidential rigour of a court of law.

The remit of the Royal Commission would be to decide:

· Whether and to what degree the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 or other greenhouse gases;

· Whether and under what conditions, if any, the IPCC's imagined consequences of the present rate of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will be beneficial or harmful;

· Whether and under what conditions, if any, mitigation of "global warming" by reducing carbon emissions will be cheaper and more cost-effective than adaptation as, and if, necessary;

· Whether and under what conditions any emissions-trading scheme can make any appreciable difference to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and whether and to what degree, if any, any such difference would affect global surface temperature.

Pending the report of the Royal Commission, Ukip would immediately:

· Repeal the Climate Change Act, and close the Climate Change Department;

· Halt all UK contributions to the IPCC and to the UN Framework Convention;

· Halt all UK contributions to any EU climate-change policy, including carbon trading;

· Cease to subsidise any environmental or "global-warming" pressure groups;

· Forbid public authorities to make any "global-warming"-related expenditure;

· Relate Met Office funding to the accuracy of its forecasts;

· Ban "global warming" propaganda, such as Gore's movie, in schools;

· Divert a proportion of the billions now wasted on the non-problem of "global warming" towards solving the world's real environmental problems.

Ukip has been calling for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate since 2008, when extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear. There must be an immediate halt to needless expenditure on the basis of a now-disproven hypothesis. Given our unprecedented national debt crisis, not a penny must be wasted, not a single job lost to satisfy vociferous but misguided campaigners, often led by ill-informed media celebrities, profiteering big businesses, insurance interests and banks. The correct policy approach to the non-problem of "global warming" is to have the courage to do nothing.

David Nutt: Drug policy

To what extent should drug policy be based on scientific evidence? What evidence, if any, would you require to declassify a drug?

The general principle is that no drug that is marketed for recreational rather than medicinal use should be available without restriction. The question of what constitutes medicinal use is a medico-scientific question, and also a question of fact. If, for instance, a drug is sold by a dealer at a rave, even if the drug were originally formulated for a genuine and necessary medicinal purpose, in that context it is being marketed for a recreational and not for a medicinal purpose, and such marketing should be restricted. The severity of the restriction should depend on the potential harm caused to the user by the drug used recreationally. The degree of harm done in this context is also a medico-scientific question as well as a question of fact. Scientific evidence, as well as factual evidence in relation to the particulars of each case, is of course necessary in formulating a responsible policy on the availability of recreational drugs.

Animal testing

Is animal testing necessary? Are the ethical concerns outweighed by the benefits? How would you like to see regulations on animal testing change under your government, if at all?

Restrictions on the use of both animals and humans in testing of new medications are already tight. In general, testing on living creatures is only justifiable where the expected benefit of the new medication compellingly outweighs any harm that may be expected to come to the creatures on whom it is tested. That is a question which medical ethics committees are best placed to answer. Testing of non-medicinal products on either humans or animals is less easy to justify.

How will your party ensure public health/education campaigns are underpinned by evidence, and how will you evaluate their success? PR companies are increasingly influential in directing both the content and delivery of public campaigns, frequently at the expense of expertise from scientists, healthcare providers and academics.

Consider the prolonged campaigns to tell the public that salt is bad for them. There is little sound scientific evidence for any such campaign, since any excess salt is merely excreted harmlessly via the kidneys. The minuscule segment of the population to whom salt may be dangerous can be informed of the dangers individually by their health practitioners.

Public health campaigns should, therefore, be informed in future not by pressure groups such as those within the medico-scientific community who have whipped up unjustifiable fears, but by a mature evaluation of the scientific evidence, hearing both sides, followed by a straightforward presentation of the facts to the public. In this process, PR corporations have little value to offer.

The success of public health campaigns can be – and should be – measured by standard, well-established statistical methods.

Genetic engineering/Stem cell research

Should Britain be at the forefront of research in these areas? What benefits do you believe such research will bring for society?

Wherever stem cells can be obtained by means other than the killing of very small children, it is ethical only to obtain the stem cells by means that do not involve the loss of little lives. On this basis, there is no reason why Britain should not play a leading part in stem cell research.

Do you believe pharmaceutical companies should be forced to publish all the research data they have on the potential benefits and harms of drugs they manufacture?

All scientists, whether in pharmaceutical, climatic or other research, should be required to archive all of the material on which they base their results, and to disclose all material known to them but not already in the public domain that may have a bearing on their results. Most respectable learned journals now require such archiving. Governments should be no less demanding.

Pandemic readiness

Do you believe the swine flu pandemic posed a significant risk to Britain? What action would your government take if a similar situation emerged in the future?

No, the swine flu epidemic did not pose a significant risk, any more than bird flu did. Only a handful of the billions of clades of each virus have the potential to cause widespread death in humans: the probability of a pandemic was negligible. Accordingly, though it is sensible to maintain a playbook for the swift containment of any truly fatal pandemic that may arise (such as HIV, where the standard public health protocol for prevention of widespread transmission was not followed when it should have been, and tens of millions have needlessly died), it is also necessary to preserve a due sense of proportion, and not to panic at the emergence of infectious diseases such as vCJD, bird flu or swine flu, none of which could have caused widespread mortality. Indeed, swine flu appears to kill a smaller proportion of those infected than most pre-existing influenzas.

This article was amended on 27 April 2010 at the request of Ukip to include an expanded response to the alternative medicine question.